Friday, September 30, 2011

"Yom Kippur, which begins next Friday night and ends Saturday night, is the Jewish Day of Atonement, the culmination of 10 days of contemplation, self-renewal and rededication to the path of righteousness.”

-Mark Oppenheimer,New York Times, Sept. 30.

THE TRUTH:

Yom Kippur is a despicable liars' festival wherein promises and oaths to be made in the coming year are nullified in advance, during the 'Kol Nidrei' rite. Is it the “path of righteousness” to cut a deal with God to be absolved for futureperjury and contractsone intends to break in the coming year? Yom Kippur’s Kol Nidrei is decidedly unrighteous. So why the coverup? The journalistic mission of the New YorkTimes is to shield Judaism from exposure, not to report the ugly truth about it. The yiddishkeit at the Times is too strong to allow the staff to report on Judaism the way the Times harshly scrutinizes Roman Catholicism and Islam. This is the halacha of the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch and Mishnah Berurah, as implemented by the New York Times: one standard for exalted Zionists and another for the debased goyim.

-Michael Hoffman

Hoffman is the author of the books Judaism Discovered and Judaism Strange Gods (the latter is forthcoming in December from Independent History and Research)

Monday, September 26, 2011

As an economist I have never had much patience with Paul Krugman’s economics, stuck as he is in 1940s-era Keynesian demand-side economics. I have sometimes concluded that Krugman had rather denounce Ronald Reagan that to acknowledge that supply-side economists have established that fiscal policy has supply-side, not just demand-side, effects.

However, Krugman does display at times a moral conscience. He did so on September 11 in his New York Times column, “The Years of Shame.” Krugman wrote that 9/11 was hijacked by “fake heroes” who used the event “to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight” and that “our professional pundits” lent their support to the misuse of the event.

Perhaps Krugman meant to use the plural and say “unrelated wars.” The US government has made war on Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, resulting in massive destruction of homes, infrastructure, and lives of civilians, all in the name of one lie or the other. In addition, the US government is conducting military operations against the populations of three more Muslim countries—Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, with extensive loss of civilian life in Pakistan, a US ally. Drones are sent in week after week that blow up schools, medical centers, and farm communities, and each time Washington announces that they have killed “militants,” “al Qaeda,” “Taliban leaders.”

Thanks to what Krugman calls “our professional pundits” and Gerald Celente calls “presstitutes,” the American people know little if anything about the murder of countless civilians and displacement of millions of others in these six Muslim countries, which the Bush/Obama governments regard as “security threats,” or habitats of small elements that are “security threats,” to the single super-power.
Before I continue, think for a minute about the level of threat posed by these Muslim countries that lack internal unity, an air force, a navy, a modern army, and nuclear ICBMs. Compare this “threat” to the Soviet threat, which, at least, was potentially real. The Soviets had the Red Army, which had defeated Hitler and his high-class war machine. The Soviet Union had an amazing array of extremely powerful ICBMs with single and multiple nuclear warheads, and nuclear submarines outfitted with nuclear-armed missiles.

Somehow we survived 46 years of this threat without going to war. But Iraq, which all but the most stupid people on earth now know had no “weapons of mass destruction,” was such a threat that the US government felt not only compelled to invade but also justified to lie to the United Nations in order to attack and destroy a country that had done nothing whatsoever to us and posed no threat whatsoever.

The same for Afghanistan. The Taliban posed no threat whatsoever to the United States or its European allies.

Pakistan is a US ally; yet, Washington has murdered thousands of Pakistani civilians. The liars in Washington and the presstitute media always claim that murdered civilians are “al Qaeda terrorists.” Every time Washington blows up a hospital, a farmer’s home, a school, Washington issues a report that it has just killed some al Qaeda leader. Some of these leaders have been reported killed multiple times.

I’m not surprised that this does not sit well with Paul Krugman. The best thing in the Keynesians’ resume is not their economics—although it was better, perhaps, than the economics that could not explain the Great Depression—but their moral conscience. Keynesian economists, for the most part, cared about people and what happened to them. I knew many of the Keynesians and debated before university and professional audiences a handful of Keynesian Nobel prize-winners. I never thought that they were callous people. I never expected to miss them.

To return to Krugman: His message comes across most powerfully in the presstitute pundits’ response to him. Michelle Malkin misinterpreted Krugman’s courage as cowardice and called him a “smug coward.”

After establishing Krugman to be a “coward,” the presstitutes, who delight in murdering “towel-heads” in six countries, escalated their attack on Krugman. Peter Bella declared Krugman to be “vile” and to have “no conscience.”

Bella’s interpretation of a moral conscience as its antithesis is a typical presstitute response. It led to attacks on the New York Times for having a “cowardly,” “bewildering,” “arrogant,” “vile,” contributor who “has no conscience” as a columnist.

Jennifer Rubin in the Washington Post declared the New York Times for publishing Krugman’s column to be “a spiritual wasteland,” this from a “newspaper” that many regard as a CIA asset.

In other words, shut Krugman up. Cancel his column. We don’t want to hear anything from anyone that casts doubt on Washington’s murder, maiming, and dislocation of millions of people because of a “threat” that is a total lie. We are the exceptional nation. We are the light unto the world. Ordinary laws do not apply to us because we are exceptional. Laws are for underlings. We have “freedom and democracy.” Anyone who doubts us is evil and a terrorist and a pinko-liberal-commie.

It will be interesting to see if Krugman’s column survives his statement of truth. It will tell us whether America has succumbed totally to being the land of the liars, or whether a person of moral conscience still has a voice.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury under Ronald Reagan. His latest book, How the Economy was Lost, has just been published by CounterPunch/AK Press. He can be reached at PaulCraigRoberts[at]yahoo.com

***

Hoffman's Afterward: It is almost certain that some self-righteous skeptics who doubt the official miracle story of how the buildings were destroyed in the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001 (a doubt I share - see this writer's review of David Ray Griffin's excellent new book, 9/11: Ten Years Later), will call Krugman to task for accepting the official account of 9/11, even as he criticizes how it was exploited by war criminals. They may even question Dr. Krugman's integrity. I strongly disagree with this refusal to acknowledge the good will and sincerity of some of the people who accept the official story of anything, whether it be the mystical statistic of "Six Million Jews" killed by the Nazis, or the "science" of "global warming." If we despise everyone who does not doubt everything that we doubt, we will end up supporting an inquisition in reverse -- of true believers. Exhibiting a Pharisaic pride in the fact that we don't believe what those "compromised Publicans" believe (Luke 18:9-14), doesn't help advance the cause of truth; more humility might.

For the past two months, in between writing issue 58 ofRevisionist History newsletter, I have been at work on a book that people have repeatedly asked me for since my 1100 page volume, Judaism Discovered, was published in 2008: a condensed summation of its research and thesis for the general reader, priced to sell in an affordable paperback. I did something like that in 2000 with a thin paperback entitled Judaism's Strange Gods that served as a groundwork for Judaism Discovered.

The new condensed book will take the form of a revived edition of Judaism's Strange Gods, though it will differ substantially from the 2000 edition, benefiting from my research into Judaism Discovered and subsequent material I have gathered since 2008. Judaism's Strange Gods: Revised and Expanded is now finished except for the index, which I am completing over this weekend. We will have details on a pre-publication sale offer in the near future.

In the midst of these publishing projects, it has been a while since I offered you a column. I thought I would give you a double-bonus and cram two columns into one.

The first is a hysterical libel of Gilad Atzmon, a Judaic who has written a new book (The Wandering Who?) that presses all the buttons on the aging propaganda machine that generates Jeffrey Goldberg's frenzied boilerplate ("self-hater, twisted and toxic hater, antisemitism, neo-Nazi, Holocaust denial, grotesque medieval calumnies, conspiracy theories"). This is the Talmudic pilpul that passes for journalism and substitutes for a reasoned argument in Goldberg's mental shetl. He plays to the choir but, admittedly, his choir is large. He's a columnist for The Atlantic magazine and is interviewed by NPR in spite of the fact that Mr. Goldberg helped to lie America into the Iraq war, an apparent venial sin which hasn't dented his media cred. (I did an analysis of Goldberg's relationship with NPR; a video of my brief talk is on YouTube).

We also offer part one of a transcript of a speech by Louis Farrakhan. There is a connection: Mr. Farrakhan talks of how Jesse Jackson was smeared because of his relationship with Farrakhan, and Mr. Goldberg, in his Atlantic column, uses Mr. Atzmon (through no fault of the latter) in a guilt-by-assocation smear of Prof. John Mearsheimer, one of the most reputable and courageous critics of Israeli racism and state terror in American academia. It is Goldberg's task to libel and stigmatize Mearsheimer. Mr. Goldberg exploits Gilad Atzmon in order to achieve this, in the same way Farrakhan's relationship with Jesse Jackson was used to damage the reputation of Mr. Jackson.Pilpulistic tactics are tiresome -- but dependable as clockwork -- and often highly effective in ostracizing and silencing peace makers and thinkers who are independent of the propaganda requirements of Zionism and Holocaustianity.

Jeffrey Goldberg himself endorses apologists for Israeli killers, denies the holocaust against the Palestinians and helped fake America into the Iraq war, but let's not confuse people with the facts. Goldberg's tantrum is worth studying as counterintelligence, a way to gauge the hallaf of one of yiddishkeit's leading inquisitors.

The following information is brought to you by the donors who support this service. Without their donations this service cannot continue. Consider joining other truth seekers by sending a donation today.

Gilad Atzmon is a jazz saxophonist who lives in London and who has a side gig disseminating the wildest sort of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. He is an ex-Israeli and a self-proclaimed "self-hater" who traffics in Holocaust denial and all sorts of grotesque, medieval anti-Jewish calumnies. Here is a small sample of Atzmon's lunatic thoughts:

"I think that 65 years after the liberation of Auschwitz, we must be entitled to start to ask the necessary questions. We should ask for some conclusive historical evidence and arguments rather than follow a religious narrative that is sustained by political pressure and laws. We should strip the holocaust of its Judeo-centric exceptional status and treat it as an historical chapter that belongs to a certain time and place. Sixty-five years after the liberation of Auschwitz we should reclaim our history and ask why? Why were the Jews hated? Why did European people stand up against their next door neighbors? Why are the Jews hated in the Middle East, surely they had a chance to open a new page in their troubled history? If they genuinely planned to do so, as the early Zionists claimed, why did they fail? Why did America tighten its immigration laws amid the growing danger to European Jews? We should also ask for what purpose do the holocaust denial laws serve? What is the holocaust religion there to conceal? As long as we fail to ask questions, we will be subjected to Zionists and their Neocons agents' plots. We will continue killing in the name of Jewish suffering. We will maintain our complicity in Western imperialist crimes against humanity......The Holocaust became the new Western religion. Unfortunately, it is the most sinister religion known to man. It is a license to kill, to flatten, no nuke, to wipe, to rape, to loot and to ethnically cleanse. It made vengeance and revenge into a Western value."(End quote from Atzmon).

...Rather unbelievably (or believably, depending on where you sit)...The R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, and co-author of "The Israel Lobby," John J. Mearsheimer...has written an endorsement of Atzmon's new book, "The Wandering Who?"...Mearsheimer is endorsing the writing of a man who espouses neo-Nazi views. In other words, he's not even bothering to make believe anymore -- he's moved from a self-described critic of Israel to a corrosive critic of Jewry itself. The blogger Adam Holland, like yours truly, didn't quite believe that Mearsheimer would endorse such a crude anti-Semite...

READ MORE OF GOLDBERG'S SCURRILOUS ATTACK ON ATZMON AND MEARSHEIMER HERE.

Smear #2

Minister Louis Farrakhan speaks of his relationship with Jesse Jackson and the JewsExcerpted from NOI Research Group Weekly Report--Volume 2, Issue 37 (September, 2011)

The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan has been personally attacked for two decades by Caucasian Jews who have attempted to label him an “anti-Semite.” The charge is absurd and the accusers have been shown to be the biggest profiteers in the trans-Atlantic slave trade and other crimes against Black humanity. But in this lecture by Min. Farrakhan at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst on March 9, 1994, the Minister explained in detail the real issues behind the controversy between Blacks and Jews. Here is the first of a three-part transcript of that historic lecture.

[....] So I would like to address in my closing some solutions, and the Black–Jewish dialogue, if you will, and Farrakhan’s being embroiled in the middle of this kind of controversy. And you can take it or leave it. I have never been anti-Semitic; I’m not now. I have never been anti-Jewish, and I’m not now. But if I recognize something, and what I recognize is not in the best interest of Jews or Blacks, I have to speak against it. And those who fear paint me in all kinds of positions. But I’m here now to defend myself. I never started any conflict with Jewish people. Never! Never. I stum- bled into it. (Laughter.) ’Cause I did.

SUPPORT FOR JESSE JACKSON

I fell in love with Jesse Jackson, my brother, and Jesse told me he wanted to run to be president. He asked me for my help. I said, “Brother, I don’t know anything about politics.” He said, “Would you help me?” I said, “I’ll think about it and I’ll let you know.” We thought about it, we in the Nation of Islam, we talked about it, and we agreed that we would help Reverend Jackson. When Jesse Jackson gave up his position at PUSH to consider running for the nomination of his party for president, he made the announcement, everybody stood and applauded. Farrakhan sat and the tears rolled down my eyes because I knew that the Reverend Jackson was embarking on a course that could lead to his untimely death. Some people rejoice to see a man make that kind of move. Other people who understand what that move entails are deeply sensitive to the danger. I was deeply sensitive to the danger. I had never seen a dossier on anybody by the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) until Jesse Jackson’s assistant, Reverend Barrow, showed me an ADL dossier on Reverend Jackson. And in their dossier, Reverend Jackson was an “anti- Semite.” I want you to listen to me. That dossier was put in the hands of media so that when Jesse would speak, they would raise questions out of that dossier to keep Jesse embroiled in a conflict with members of the Jewish community.

That raised money, but it also would be put in a context that would cut Jesse from support from the common Gentiles of this nation. In February of 1984, ten years ago, Reverend Jackson informed me that there were over 100 real threats on his life. He was told that by the FBI. He was frankly worried, and so was I. So at my convention — the convention of the Nation of Islam — I was introducing Reverend Jackson that year, and in my introduction if you read my words, if you’re a fair-minded person, you could never say that I was anti-Semitic. I appealed to the Jewish community and I said to them that whenever the interests of Jews and Blacks converged, Blacks and Jews always worked together. But when we come of age—meaning we mature, in our self-interest — we have to follow our self-interest, even if our self-interest causes us to be at variance with the interest of the Jewish community.

“RUIN JESSE”

I said, Reverend Jackson is our enlightened self-interest. I said, and the way you handle him can rupture Black–Jewish relations because 90 percent of the Black electorate was lining up behind Reverend Jackson, and members of the Jewish Defense League had interrupted Jesse Jackson’s announcement of his candidacy in Washington, D.C. I was present; I saw it. Then a full-page ad was taken out in the New York Times saying, “Ruin, Jesse, Ruin!”

Because the chant among Black people was, “Run, Jesse, Run!” And this group called Jews Against Jesse took out an ad saying, “Ruin, Jesse, Ruin!”

Wait a minute. In a political campaign if you don’t like your candidate or the op-ponent, you defeat his program—you attack him intelligently. You put an ad in the paper —“Ruin”? What does the word “ruin” mean? Hmm?

When something is ruined — that garment that you have on that you paid whatever you paid for it — if it is ruined, do you put it on again? To ruin Jesse was the aim of those who put that ad in the New York Times. No responsible Jewish organization condemned that ad. (Applause.) I want you to listen. Now I want you to hear Farrakhan. Since you heard so much about me, now hear me, and give me the same ear that you gave my detractors.

"IF ANY HARM COMES TO HIM, HE'LL BE THE LAST BLACK MAN THAT YOU'LL KILL."

When I spoke, Brother Yusuf Muhammad put my words on this campus in a flyer. Those were my exact words. If you’re sane and intelligent, there’s not one anti-Semitic statement or anti-Jewish statement there. I called on the Jews to sit down and talk with Reverend Jackson. “If you disagree with him,” I said, “we can stand to lose an election, but we cannot stand to lose Reverend Jackson.” I said, “If any harm comes to him, he’ll be the last Black man that you’ll kill.”

Wait, wait, wait, I didn’t finish, no, no— ’cause that’s an implied threat. I said, “We don’t carry weapons. We’re not allowed to carry as much as a pen knife,” I said, “But Almighty God has caused this son of ex-slaves to rise up to such a position, and God Himself will retaliate.”

This is a paraphrase of my actual words, which, they’re out here for you to read. The next day in New York the head of B’nai B’rith was on the radio, calling me “the new black Hitler.”

Let’s stop right there.

Now, I grew up in Roxbury. I went to the Sherwin School, and Boston Public Latin. Didn’t make it there. I graduated from Boston English. I went to Huntington Prep School. Go and search my record. I hardly ever had a fight in my whole life. I’ve never been arrested. All my friends, if you talk to them, they have nothing evil to say about me. I’ve never been a violence-prone individual; not then, not now. All human beings, however, are capable, if pushed to that extreme. I have never said privately to my children, or publicly, Jews should be exterminated. My sons and daughters have grown up in my house. They have never heard me speak of Jews or Italians or Hispanic people using slang terms like “spic” or “kike” or “wop.” I don’t talk like that because I know what it feels like to be called a “nigger” all my life. (Applause.)

But anybody that knows me from my childhood knows I was a young man of principle and if you wanted a fight outta me, then the fight would never be on no stupid thing, it would always be over a violation of a principle. That’s my history.

"POPE PIUS XII LOOKED THE OTHER WAY" (AS 'JEWS' WERE PUT IN OVENS)

And to call me Hitler. Every young Jew in this audience, whose parents or grandparents went through the Holocaust. What does it mean to them when you say I am a Hitler? Every young Jew would hate that man and want him dead because nobody wants to see a Hitler come up again. What makes me a new black Hitler? We never put Jews in ovens. Not one Black person in this audience has put a Jew in an oven. Gentiles did. Pope Pius XII looked the other way. Franklin Delano Roosevelt looked the other way. (Applause.) You know it. Black people were your liberators from Auschwitz! The first ones in the death camps were Black people. (Applause.)

Now Farrakhan is upset. And shouldn’t I be? If somebody called you a Hitler, wouldn’t you be upset? But why did you call me Hitler? Because of my skill as an orator. Unmatched— no vanity, no vanity, no vanity, no ego. God has given me that gift. I move people. I move people not because I move people. I move people because I am an instrument that communicates to the nth degree to human beings and their pain. I don’t need notes. I speak from the soul, and my speech is like music. Even though it may be uncomfortable some of the passages are so beautiful, because I’m not a hater. I’m passionate over the suffering of my people in particular, but human beings in general.

"HITLER WAS A GENIUS"

So I was inflamed, and I...said, “So here come the Jews now, calling me Hitler.” I said, “Well, that’s a good name.” I said Hitler was no good for me but he rose Germany up from the ashes of her defeat in World War I. Hitler, with his magnificent oratory, made a people with his philosophy and ideology of Aryan supremacy. He made a people in Germany, and it took the whole western world united to defeat [him]. A nation of only 17 million people had the whole world shake with their genius. Hitler was a genius. The West had deciphered his codes and they let whole towns be bombed so that Hitler would not know that they knew. They knew his commands through his generals. As his generals got it, they got it. And even with that, it took the combined might of all of Europe and America to defeat that man.

I said he was a great man, but he was wickedly great. And I am not wrong. That’s your English language. In the Oxford Dictionary, there are four pages on the word great. Only one of them, one line, says great in a way that it means something laudatory. All the rest is talking about magnitude, significance, impact. The man was great, but he was wicked. I can’t approve of another man putting human beings in ovens—men, women, children. I’m a father. I’m a grandfather. I love my children, and when I look at Jewish children and Palestinian children growing the way they’re growing, to kill each other down the road — I’m hoping that some way we can break that chain. And I know that the only thing that will break it is truth and justice.

But because Zionists saw a threat in Reverend Jackson’s appeal, since Reverend Jackson had embraced Arafat, several years before Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres. Jackson was hated for embracing Arafat, and since it was feared that Reverend Jackson, if given a platform, could disturb the delicate balance between the Blacks who were all pro-Israel to turn Black people maybe to a pro-Palestinian stance, then to that degree it was in the Zionists’ self-interest to destroy the candidacy of Reverend Jackson by any means necessary. And so, they, when I said Hitler was great, headline came up in the New York Post: “Jackson Pal Hails Hitler.”

Now Farrakhan is the whipping boy. They’re beating the hell out of me to get to Jesse. After a while Jesse can’t take it anymore. He repudiates Farrakhan, leaving me out there now by myself. It’s all right though. It’s all right. I didn’t come in the world with no twin. (Applause.) I don’t need an army behind me to stand up for what I believe. I was made that way and as long as God is with me, then I’m never alone. So now I’m out there. I refused to divide the Black people who were behind Jesse, who loved Farrakhan. I refused to speak evil against my brother because he had repudiated me. This is history. And when I learned that the (U.S.) Senate had condemned me and repudiated me, a vote of 95 to nothin.’ A white Senate. No Black people in it. “Representative” government had repudiated me, for allegedly calling Judaism a gutter religion, which I never did.

I am a man that is not afraid to tell you that I said that, ’cause anything that I say,I back it up. And if I can’t back it up with truth, I’ll apologize to you, for so stating or being in error. I think that’s the proper thing to do. But I never said that. And you know what’s worse? It’s ten years now. And every time they write about Farrakhan, [it’s]: “the man that called Hitler great and Judaism a gutter religion.” That’s the way they put me before you.

Well, since [they believe] Black folk are natural liars and cowards, then my saying, “I didn’t say that; here’s what I said and here’s what I meant”— oh, that don’t mean anything to you. So you never took what I said to have any weight at all, because what you say is the truth, and whatever a Black man says in defense of himself he’s only trying to get out from what his own mouth has spoken. You don’t know me, but you’re getting acquainted with me. I think you know now, you’ll have to kill me to get me to back down from truth, and I’m telling you today at Amherst, Don’t even think about it! (Applause.)

"THE MEDIA CAN'T BREAK ME"

For 10 years, I’ve been in this struggle. For 10 years, I have tried to sit down and dialogue with the Anti- Defamation League. For 10 years, I’ve asked them, “Let’s sit down and talk.” That’s the civilized thing to do. When people have a genuine disagreement, sit down and talk about it. They re- fuse. Rabbis come to my door, sit at my table, we have dinner, we talk candidly and frankly, we embrace each other. But the Rabbis have no power with these organizations that are politically inspired Zionist organizations. They don’t have any power. So even though we come to some agreement, the ADL has never agreed to sit down with me. Fine. I ain’t beggin’ you to sit down. I think it’s intelligent, because you don’t want it to go too far. You don’t want it to get that far, if you got sense. You thought that when the media attacked me, Farrakhan was going to dry up and blow away? Not this one. You can blow away them others, but not this one. Because the media didn’t make me, I’m not a creature of the media. So since the media didn’t create me, the media can’t break me. I guess you’ve learned that by now. The more you attack me, the bigger God makes me grow. (Applause)

And you haven’t learned your lesson yet, but I thank you, media — you really are wonderful. No, I’m serious — I’m not being facetious — they’re really wonderful. No, you really are; I respect you to the highest. Whatever you say to me is all right. You can cuss me out, line by line, word by word, and that’s what you do. But my teacher taught me, “Son, every knock is a boost.” So here we are now. Police all around — SWAT team, bomb squad, mounted police; Farrakhan gotta bring 100 security people. For what? For what? Because one Black man stood up to speak truth as he understood it and wouldn’t back down. And some of those in positions of power in the Jewish community feel that Black folks should back down, feel that we should bend and bow and scrape and scratch. You still bugged out over that Hamitic thing. Ham don’t have no relationship to me. (Applause.)

I am not one of the sons of Noah. I was before Noah. I was before Abraham. I was before Adam. Now, don’t give me no Johnny-come-lately as my father, because I know the history now. And if you scratch me—not scratch me—I mean push me, I’ll be glad to tell you not only where I’m from, but where you’re from too. (Applause.) [To be continued]

LOUIS FARRAKHAN will speak October 9, 2011 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania at the Philadelphia Convention Center. Tickets are $20. All races and religions are invited. Doors open at 12 p.m. Program starts at 2 pm. (www.noi.org) There will also be a presentation from 1 - 3 p.m. in Room 108 of the Convention Center by the Historical Research Group of the Nation of Islam, authors of the books The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, Volume 1 (on the slave trade) and volume 2 (on Judaic influence in the American South after the War Between the States).

***

Michael Hoffman is the founder of The Hoffman Center for the Study of Anti-Goyimism. On the Contrary is a public service of Independent History and Research, Box 849, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816 USA.

Monday, September 12, 2011

Editor’s Note: Mr. Baskin is a Zionist Israeli, but he is a fairly decent person in spite of his adherence to Zionism. His nationalism is genuinely moderate rather than just a velvet glove for war-Zionism. He is interested in peace. He is however, also saddled with certain Israeli handicaps. For example, he sees Hizbollah in Lebanon as merely an "Iranian proxy" rather than a people’s liberation movement that drove the Israeli proxies (South Lebanon Army) out, and closed down the now completely forgotten (in the West, anyway) Israeli concentration camp in Lebanon, El Khiam. We don’t make peace with friends, we make peace with enemies and if Baskin, by reason of his Zionist orientation, is an enemy, he is one with whom peace can be made. He deflates the American right wing view that Israelis are hated no matter what they do in the Middle East. Baskin shows that Israeli dispossession of the Palestinians is the deciding factor behind the animosity.

Encountering Peace: The view from Cairo

What’s needed is stronger bridges, not higher walls

By Gershon Baskin

Jerusalem Post, Sept. 12, 2011

Since Friday I have been in Cairo. This great city is not unfamiliar to me – I’ve been here more than 20 times, although my last visit was five years ago. I came to Cairo to attend a small meeting of MECA – the Middle East Citizens Assembly. This small but important organization was founded by Walid Salem, a Palestinian peace and democracy activist from east Jerusalem who decided that for real democracy to take root in the Arab world, citizens needed to take responsibility, stop acting like subjects and become active participants. Walid succeeded in creating a network of democracy activists from all over the Middle East including Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Syria, Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia, Turkey, Iran, Palestine, Israel and more.

Walid has consistently demanded that Israelis be included at every meeting. I was privy to an email correspondence between Walid, other members of MECA and a new Libyan participant, in which the Libyan said he wouldn’t participate in any meeting that included Israelis. Walid and other Arab members told him directly that while it was certainly his right to boycott Israelis, MECA was a inclusive forum for all citizens of the Middle East, including Israelis. Six or seven Israelis had been scheduled to attend the Cairo meetings, but canceled due to the current political and security tensions. Being somewhat more familiar with traveling in the region, and knowing that I would be in Cairo with friends, I made up my mind to go as planned. I did decide, however, not to visit Tahrir Square, which has become a less than welcoming place for foreigners in general and Israelis in particular.

DESPITE HAVING a US passport, I always try to travel in the Arab world on my Israeli one, and this trip was no exception. I did, however, take some precautions. On the advice of some Israeli friends who work in security, I checked into the hotel on my US passport; a hotel clerk making a few dollars a day can easily be bribed by terrorist groups to provide information about Israeli guests. I also locked all of my Israeli documents in the room safe and carried only my US passport with me in my travels around Cairo. I only had to show it once, while visiting an open-air market behind the foreign ministry.

I was taking pictures and a young man stopped me and asked me who I was taking pictures for, adding that I required a permit. I told him in Arabic that I didn’t need a permit, that Egypt was a democracy now, but he insisted. I told him the pictures were for my private use, and showed him my US passport. He accepted my explanation, and then insisted I come with him to photograph some graffiti on the Foreign Ministry walls. With a big smile on his face, he proudly translated some of it: “death to Israel,” “cancel the peace treaty with Israel,” etc.

On Friday night, as the Israeli Embassy was under attack, I was sitting with an Egyptian friend in a coffee shop in Zamalek, where my hotel is. Zamalek is an island in the middle of the Nile where most of the embassies in Cairo are located. There a many foreigners in Zamalek and security is always on high alert. I heard shooting from the direction of Giza, where the Israeli embassy is located. I thought it was fireworks from a wedding celebration, such as I often hear from my home in Jerusalem. When I woke up the next morning, however, I learned of the horrible attack against the Israeli Embassy, and the failure of the Egyptian security forces to prevent it. My friends at the MECA meeting condemned the attack both publicly and in private, and also expressed their concern for my security and their solidarity, assuring me that they would protect me.

At the meeting, the well known professor and democracy activist Saad Eddin Ibrahim, who had been jailed and tortured by Mubarak, gave a brilliant presentation about the Egyptian revolution and how Tahrir square, and many other squares around Egypt, had been transformed into “Parliaments of the People.” In my speech, which followed Prof. Ibrahim’s, I tried to express the deep concern felt by Israelis at what we saw going on around us in “the neighborhood.” The “Parliaments of the People,” I said, were beginning to look like “Parliaments of the mobs.”

Viewed through Israeli eyes, I said, the neighborhood looked quite disturbing. Lebanon is ruled by Hizbullah – an Iranian proxy, and Gaza is controlled by Hamas – an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. The West Bank could easily fall into Hamas hands as well. Egypt could easily be taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood. If the Syrian revolution is successful it, too, could be taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood, as could Jordan, if the Hashemite regime is overthrown. In addition, from the Israeli perspective Turkey is on its way to becoming a radical Islamic state. A scary picture indeed.

THE NARGILA boy in the coffee shop in Zamalek asked me where I was from. “Falestin,” I said. “Very good,” he replied, “we love Palestine ... I will kill all of the Israelis for you!” I asked him why he hated Israelis so much. Did he know any Israelis, I asked? No, and he didn’t want to, he replied. He hated the Israelis, he said, because they killed Palestinians and took their land, and because now they were also killing Egyptians. I asked him what he would think if Israel ended the occupation and made peace with a Palestinian state. After a brief pause, he said, “If they make real peace and free the Palestinians and let them have a state, we will have nothing against Israel, ahalan w’sahalan (welcome).”

This young man, educated on the street, and by Al Jazeera, probably knows almost nothing about the conflict, but his views reflect those of millions of Arabs all over the region, and millions of Turks as well. People across this region are willing to accept an Israel that lives in peace with its Arab neighbors. Israel is hated in the Arab and Muslim world not, as many Israelis believe, simply because they deny our right to exist. If Israel would only understand that its relations with the Palestinians determine the level of its acceptance in the region perhaps we would be at a very different place today.

People in the MECA meeting said that the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative was still on the table and serves as the basis for Israel to be a welcome member throughout the region. All of the Egyptians that I have spoken with condemned the attack against the Israeli embassy. The story on the street and among the youth leaders of the revolution is that the leaders of the mobs that torched the Ministry of Interior, the headquarters of the el-Ghad party and the Israeli embassy have been identified as members of the hated former internal security forces. They say that these people are actively working to undermine the revolution and to show that post-Mubarak Egypt is a lawless society where all security has broken down. They hope to hijack the revolution and to bring back the old regime. My first impulse was to dismiss this claim as just another Arab conspiracy theory, but after talking to some serious analysts and experts I changed my mind. It seems there is a very real possibility that these attacks were in fact carried out by anti-revolutionary “agents provocateurs.”

From my admittedly non-scientific reading of the Cairo street “map,” the Egyptian masses do not support the attack against the Israeli embassy. They do not support warm peace with Israel or forms of normalization because in their view Israel has not implemented the second chapter of the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty of Camp David – ending the occupation, but they do understand and support the strategic importance of the peace for Egypt. Egyptians do not want to go to war against Israel.

I HAVE also been in Turkey more than 100 times, for joint Israeli-Arab meetings, mainly during the years of the second intifada when it was almost impossible to meet locally. I have met Turkish President Abdullah Gul and hosted him in Jerusalem when he was foreign minister. I know the current foreign minister Mr. Ahmet Davutoglu, from when he was an advisor to the party leader. We have remained in contact over the past years via email. The AKP in Turkey is not a radical Islamic party, nor are its leaders radical Muslims. The root cause of the free-fall of Israel/Turkey relations is the same as that of the Arab street’s hatred of Israel: the continuation and entrenching of the Israeli occupation, when there is a moderate – as understood by most of the world – Palestinian leadership willing to make peace with Israel.

Notwithstanding the fact that we are not solely responsible for the lack of peace, we have clearly not done enough to strive for real peace. The current events in Cairo and Ankara should be our wake-up call. Most of our leaders will respond by calling for higher walls, when what we really need are stronger bridges. An Israel reaching out to the Palestinians and willing to make peace with them – not an imaginary peace with a Palestinian state floating in the air, but one based on the 1967 borders – will find a welcoming neighborhood in Benghazi, Baghdad, Beirut, Amman, Cairo, Ankara, Ramallah and even in Gaza. (End quote; emphasis supplied).

Gershon Baskin is the founder and co-director of IPCRI, the Israel Palestine Center for Research and Information, he hosts a weekly radio show in Hebrew on All for Peace radio, and a voluntary columnist for The Jerusalem Post.

David Ray Griffin in his new book, 9/11 Ten Years Later: When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed, takes stock of what we know, after the passage of a decade of intensive grassroots research and analysis, about what really happened that day, and of the present state of the 9/11 truth movement - its strengths and its weaknesses, and how it can move forward most effectively. The book is a combination of important lectures given by Griffin in the last few years, revised and updated for publication, and of completely new essays on key topics, such as the strong evidence that the phone calls from the hijacked airliners must have been faked, and the powerful consensus about the Pentagon events that has been achieved by the movement.

The first four chapters highlight the strongest evidence that 9/11 was an inside job and the clearest implications of that evidence: the lack of evidence that Muslims attacked the US on that day (making clear that the ten-year-long series of wars on Muslim nations is morally and legally unjustified); the multiple occasions on which the laws of physics were miraculously inoperative in the destruction of the World Trade Center, if the official account so ferociously defended by erstwhile critics of government like Bill Moyers, Robert Parry, Alexander Cockburn and many others is to be believed; and the extraordinary case of World Trade Center (WTC) 7's classic demolition, which has been assiduously covered up by the mainstream media and government agencies (its collapse was never even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report, and the final report on its destruction issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in November 2008 was fraudulent).

Chapter 5, "Phone Calls From The 9/11 Planes: Why They Are Not Authentic," examines all the evidence that has been discovered regarding phone calls from the hijacked airliners. The phone calls have been a crucial part of the official story of the day's events, purportedly establishing that the planes were hijacked by Arab Muslims and that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. But after a careful, critical analysis Griffin is forced to conclude that the phone calls were not made from the planes. First he shows that there is no evidence that the alleged hijackers actually were ever onboard any of the planes, and further, that the failure of any of the eight pilots to "squawk" the hijack code into their transponders is "strong evidence that the official story about the 9/11 planes -- that the cabins were taken over by hijackers - is false." He then shows that the calls to Deena Burnett, which registered on her caller ID as calls from her husband Tom Burnett's cell phone (he was a passenger on board Flight 93), could not have been completed because cell phone technology in 2001 was not capable of completing calls from airliners at high elevation. Griffin concludes the calls had to have been faked, and suggests that they were faked by voice morphing, already a well-established technical capability at the time. After examining the claims made for many other calls, including those for Barbara Olson, wife of then Solicitor General Ted Olson, which were the basis for the claim that Flight 77 was still in the air and subsequently crashed into the Pentagon, Griffin concludes that "the evidence that the 'calls from the planes' were faked is strong, ... far stronger than the evidence for the view that the calls were made by passengers and flight attendants, describing the activities of Middle-Eastern hijackers."

Chapter 6 discusses Vice President Dick Cheney's changing account of his whereabouts and activities at key times during the morning of 9/11. After admitting on national TV five days later that he had been present and in charge in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) in the basement of the White House before the Pentagon was attacked, he changed his story in November and claimed he did not reach the PEOC until after the Pentagon attack. Griffin shows that the 9/11 Commission Report upheld Cheney's otherwise unsupported second account, which absolved him of responsibility during two key incidents, the Pentagon attack and the destruction of Flight 93 in Pennsylvania. He shows further that much evidence, ignored by the Commission, contradicted Cheney's second story, including Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta's testimony before the Commission, Counterterrorism Czar Richard Clarke's published account of the morning, and reports from ABC News on the first anniversary of 9/11, all of which the Commission buried without mention.

The gem of the book is the seventh chapter, "The Pentagon: A Consensus Approach." In this very detailed analysis Griffin shows that the 9/11 truth movement has developed a complex, broad-based refutation of the official story of what happened at the Pentagon (that "the Pentagon was attacked by American Airlines Flight 77... under the control of al-Qaeda"). He examines fourteen facts which have been established by independent researchers, upon which there is universal agreement, and any one of which is enough to demolish the official account. Griffin argues that the movement should concentrate its Pentagon energies on further strengthening and advocacy of these points of agreement, and avoid dissipating time, energy and trust on a question which has taken up much of these resources in recent years, the question of "what hit the Pentagon?" He shows that this question is unanswerable with the evidence available; only a genuine investigation of the 9/11 attacks will enable it to be answered.

Chapter 8 illuminates the psychology of resistance to the truth about the 9/11 events which is so widespread, arguing that the real faith of the nominally-Christian US is "nationalist faith." The critique of the official story laid out by the 9/11 truth movement is literally unthinkable for many, even for devout Christians whose religion calls upon them to avoid all kinds of idolatry, including nationalism. Griffin concludes that "[w]hen Christian faith is subordinated to faith in American goodness ... it becomes a blinding faith, producing Christians with eyes wide shut."

The subtitle of the book indicates that the 9/11 attacks, in being a false-flag operation carried out by elements of the US government, were a "State Crime Against Democracy" or SCAD, with the primarily political purpose of imposing policies by force upon the country, and that the failure to carry out a genuine investigation, arrest the perpetrators and reverse the policies adopted by the government after 9/11 means that the operation has succeeded. But only to this point in time: the future is still open. Griffin provides in a powerful conclusion (Ch. 9, "When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed") suggestions for how the 9/11 truth movement can continue to press forward to the necessary investigation of the 9/11 crimes and the reversal of the tragic course taken by the US while under the control of the criminals.

This superb book is written with the usual clarity, logic and argumentative power readers have come to expect from David Ray Griffin, which he has now employed in ten books on the 9/11 attacks. 9/11 Ten Years Later: When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed continues his advance at the cutting edge of 9/11 truth, and should be read by everyone who wants to take stock of what the movement has achieved and how to press on into a future in which illegal, immoral wars have been stopped and the country's democratic ideals reaffirmed. (End quote; emphasis supplied)

Thursday, September 08, 2011

James Shelby Downard termed it a cryonic process, free/thaw. He taught that in the age of the Revelation of the Method, a conspiracy is first presented according to an infallible official version in which doubt is banished, skeptics are mocked and everyone is expected to believe what they have been told by "the authorities."

He predicted that years later, through a series of episodic revelations from the authorities themselves, the official story would be slowly revealed to have been not as air-tight as first presented by the government and its mouthpiece media. Inconvenient, indeed even highly contradictory facts subversive of the initial "infallible" account, are then publicly "thawed," and over the years it is gradually revealed to the nation that lies were told and truths withheld. Evidence for a conspiracy slowly leaks into the national psyche like acid from an old battery.

Today in the pages of the New York Times we see Mr. Downard's thaw in action:

Newly Published Audio Provides Real-Time View of 9/11 Attacks

New York Times, Sept. 8, 2011, p. A1 (Excerpt)

“The story of the day, of 9/11 itself, is best told in the voices of 9/11,” said Miles Kara, a retired Army colonel and an investigator for the commission who studied the events of that morning. At hearings in 2003 and 2004, the 9/11 Commission played some of the recordings and said civil and military controllers improvised responses to attacks they had never trained for. At 9 a.m., a manager of air traffic control in New York called Federal Aviation Administration headquarters in Herndon, Va., trying to find out if the civil aviation officials were working with the military.

“Do you know if anyone down there has done any coordination to scramble fighter-type airplanes?” the manager asked, continuing: “We have several situations going, going on here, it is escalating big, big time, and we need to get the military involved with us.”

One plane had already crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center. Another had been hijacked and was seconds from hitting the south tower. At F.A.A. headquarters, not everyone was up to speed.

“Why, what’s going on?” the man in Herndon asked.

“Just get me somebody who has the authority to get military in the air, now,” the manager said.

The account published this week is missing two essential pieces that remain restricted or classified, according to Mr. Kara. One is about 30 minutes of the cockpit recording of United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed into the ground after passengers tried to storm the cockpit as hijackers flew across Pennsylvania toward Washington, D.C. Families of some of those onboard have objected to the release of that recording, Mr. Kara said.

The other still-secret recording is of a high-level conference call that began at 9:28 and grew, over the course of the morning, to include senior figures like Mr. Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard B. Myers. The recording was turned over to the National Security Council. The 9/11 Commission was not permitted to keep a copy of it or of the transcript, Mr. Kara said, and investigators were closely monitored when they listened to it. (End quote from the New York Times)

What's the point of this cryonic processing? It's a type of occult nose-thumbing which breeds psychological defeat in target populations. A decade later and the Establishment is admitting what "conspiracy nuts" have been saying for years: that America's formidable air defense network stood down on 9/11.

They're still playing us for suckers, however -- after all, it has only been ten years and we could still convene grand juries and bring the actual 9/11 conspirators to justice. Therefore, in 2011, they're still insulting our intelligence and retailing patent nonsense. The New York Times says, "...civil and military controllers improvised responses to attacks they had never trained for."

In 2001 America's air defense command "had never trained for" airplane hijackings, or the use of a hijacked plane as a missile, including in the air space over the Pentagon?

In the next ten years they'll drop that laughable story and reveal more of the truth. The question is, why do "we the people" have to wait for our overlords to reveal hidden truths about the most egregious terror attack on American soil in our history? Where are our representatives in Congress, our national print and broadcast journalists, our retired air force and intelligence officers when it comes to investigating what really happened behind the smokescreen?

These people are in the place where fallen human nature has always been, worshipping an idol, in this case, as David Ray Griffin states in his new book, 9/11 Ten Years Later, the American religion of adoration of the government when it is cloaked in a policeman, fireman or soldier's uniform. Moreover, our elected representatives, along with our ex-military brass, don't want to be libeled in the press or share the fate of Mary Pinchot Meyer, Dorothy Kilgallen, and the other witnesses and investigators who sought the radical truth about who killed JFK, and were themselves killed.

9/11 as Psy War

The Cryptocracy's aims extend far beyond the gradual imposition of a national security police state and the erosion of our immemorial liberties, which George W. Bush's Justice Department torture advocate, John Yoo, recently said in the Wall Street Journal never happened. Their end goal is beyond conditioning us for Stalinist cattle car shakedowns at airport security, or warrantless eavesdropping on phone conversations, and sneak-and-peak home invasions.

Their highest objective is the murder of our minds by inculcating in us amnesia, apathy and abulia (loss of will). "Skynet" military robots -- now rolling off the assembly line -- will be too powerful for any citizen armed with a shotgun or AR-15 to be able to resist. Spiders are being genetically crossed with goats, and pigs with humans, while almost every corn and soy crop in the United States is now genetically modified. There's nary a peep or a whimper from "we the people" as these horrors are slowly imposed through our hypnotic acquiescence to their "inevitabilist" script.

Our industry has been dismantled and our jobs shipped overseas, while big business and the Obama administration call for amnesty for illegal immigrants and the importation of more executive-level aliens from India and China to manage what's left of American enterprise. (General Electric, headed by President Obama's "jobs' adviser," is moving its large medical device manufacturing unit to Communist China).

The yeomanry of America have never been more compromised or confused. On Sept. 7 it was revealed by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, that presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann, one of the yeomanry's war-Zionist heroines, is a disciple of Rabbi Yoshiyahu Pinto, a Kabbalist practitioner. Pinto is the nephew of the late Kabbalist con-man, Rabbi “Baba” Elazar Abuhatzeira with whom readers of Revisionist History newsletter no. 58 will be familiar. Kabbalists engage in Babylonian sorcery, astrology and the dispensing of magic amulets and evil eye curses. Rabbi Pinto has tens of thousands of superstitious followers around the world, and one of them wants to be President of the United States, with the help of America's unemployed carpenters, welders, steelworkers and home-schooling moms.

These bipolar contradictions and free/thaw revelations are tearing at the psyche of America to a degree that no one can truly estimate. We're been prepared to think of "The End" of the American dream in terms of instant atomic incineration of our great cities. Actually, our rot is much less dramatic and much more profound. Benjamin Jowett, the Oxford classicist, in his introduction to his translation of Plato's Republic, wrote, "The lie in the soul is a true lie."

The American yeomany are encouraged to wave their flags and believe they live in the "freest and greatest country on earth." In the midst of this blather, Americans see their homes being foreclosed, their jobs sent to China and the national treasury and blood of their youth wasted in two foreign wars. Under such pressures, where no one with national standing will lead them to march on Washington and New York and bring Pharaoh's treasonous business to a halt, they do what every oppressed slave has ever done: they turn on each other.

From coast to coast random shooters are gunning down their fellow Americans and then committing suicide in record numbers. On Sept. 6, near Morgantown, West Virginia, a 22-year-old shot and killed five people including a pregnant woman, before turning his gun on himself. The very next day, Sept. 7, in a breakfast joint in Carson City, Nevada, a 32-year-old man killed four people and wounded five before taking his own life.

Nothing justifies these heinous acts. But these rage-filled gunmen in many cases can no longer subsist on "the lie in the soul" that is our national propaganda story. Called "mentally imbalanced," they may see and feel more intensely what the rest of us suppress and experience as ulcers, heart attacks and divorce. At some inchoate level they know they've been robbed by Wall Street, the military-industrial complex, politicians sold on perpetual war for perpetual peace, and an unending flood of illegal immigration. "True lies," among them the cryonic 9/11 tale, nag at the sub-cellar of their minds until they drive them mad.

The "God bless America" crowd will dismiss my views as unpatriotic defeatism from a conspiracy nutjob. I don't mind. I've seen it before. I was a kid when President Kennedy was murdered. Who today believes he died solely at the hands of one man and one very talented rifle bullet? Let's see what the true believers will have to say in the Sept. 11 thaw that will seep into what’s left of our Republic in the year 2021, which just happens to be a sigificant number in the Babylonian numerology of Michelle Bachmann's rabbi.